From the Economic Life of Russia

Underthis general heading we intend to publish from time to time, as the
      material accumulates, articles and commentaries in which all aspects of
      Russia’s economic life and economic development will be described from the
      Marxist point of view. Now thatIskra[1]has begun to appear fort-nightly, the absence of such a section is most
      keenly felt. However, we must call the most earnest attention of all
      comrades and sympathisers of our publications to the fact that to conduct
      this section (at all properly) we need an abundance of material and in
      this respect our editors find themselves in an exceptionally unfavourable
      position. The contributor to the legal press cannot even imagine the most
      elementary obstacles that sometimes frustrate the intentions and
      endeavours of the “underground” writer. Do not forget,
      gentlemen, that we cannot use the Imperial National Library, where tens
      and hundreds of special publications and local newspapers are at the
      service of the journalist. Material for an economics section at all
      befitting a “news paper,” i.e., material that is at all brisk,
      topical, and interesting to both reader and writer, is scattered in small
      local newspapers and in special publications which are mostly either too
      expensive or are not at all on sale (government,

      Zemstvo,[2]medical publications, etc.). That is why it will be possible to run an
      economics section tolerably wellonlyifall readersof
      the illegal newspaper act in accordance with the proverb: “Many a
      little makes a mickle.” Putting aside all false modesty, the Editorial
      Board ofIskramust admit that in this respect they are very
      poorly supplied. We are sure that most of our readers are able to read the
      most various special and local publications, and actually doread them “for themselves.” Only wheneverysuch reader
      asks himselfeach limehe comes across some interesting item:

      “Is this material available to the editors of our paper? What have I
      done to acquaint them with this material?”— only then shall we
      succeed in having all the outstanding developments in Russia’s economic
      life appraised, not only from the standpoint of the official,Novoye

	Vremya,[3]Witte panegyrics, not only for the sake of the traditional
      liberal-Narodnik plaints, but also from the standpoint of revolutionary
      Social-Democracy.

Andnow, after this non-liberal plaint, let us get down to the subject.

1. The Savings-Banks

Oflate the savings-banks have become one of the most favoured subjects of
      panegyrics, not only from Witte, but from the “critics” as
      well. The Davids and Hertzes, the Chernovs and Bulgakovs, the
      Prokopoviches and Totomiantses, in a word, all adherents of the
      fashionable “criticism of Marxism” (to say nothing of
      respectable professors, like the Kablukovs and Karyshevs) chant in various
      tones and voices: “These orthodox devotees talk about the
      concentration of capital!—Why, the savings-banks alone show us the
      decentralisation of capital. They talk of mounting poverty! In actual
      fact, we see an increase in small savings among the people.”

Letus take the official statistics on the Russian savings-banks for

      1899,[4]which someone was kind enough to send us, and examine them more
      closely. In 1899 there was a total of 4,781 state savings-banks in Russia,
      of which 3,718 were located at post- and telegraph-offices and 84 at
      factories. In five years (from 1895 to 1899) the number of savings-banks
      increased by 1,189, i.e., by one-third. During the same period the number
      of depositors increased from 1,664,000 to 3,145,000, i.e., by almost one
      and a half million (by 89 per cent), and the total deposits increased from
      330,000,000 rubles to 608,000,000 rubles, i.e., by 278,000,000 rubles, or
      by 84 per cent. And so there has apparently been an enormous increase in
      “the people’s savings”?

Butwhat strikes the eye in this connection is the following
      circumstance. From literature about the savings banks it is known that in
      the eighties and early nineties the total deposits increasedmost
      rapidly in the famine years, 1891 and 1892. That is on the one
      hand. On the other, we know that during this period in general, during the
      eighties and nineties taken together, the increase in “the people’s
      savings” was accompanied by an astonishingly rapid and drastic
      process of impoverishment, ruin, and starvation among the peasantry. To
      understand how these conflicting phenomena could go together one need only
      recall that thegrowth of money economywas the principal feature
      in Russia’s economic life during the period mentioned. The increase in
      savings-bank deposits is by itself not at all indicative of a growth in
      “the people’s” savings in general, but only of a growth inmonetary“savings” (and sometimes even only of their
      concentration in central institutions). Among the peasantry, for example,
      it is quite possible that, with the transition from natural economy to
      money economy, there should be anincreasein monetary savingswith a decreasein the sum-total of “the people’s”
      savings. The peasant of the old type kept his savings in a stocking when
      these savings were in cash, but most often these savings were made up of
      grain, fodder, coarse linen, firewood, and like articles “in kind.”
      The peasant who has been or is being ruined now has savings neither in
      kind nor in cash, while a negligible minority of peasants who are growing
      rich are accumulating monetary savings which are beginning to find their
      way into state savings-banks. Hence, the in crease in deposits parallel
      with the spread of famine is quite understandable; what it denotes is not
      an advancement in the people’s welfare, but the elimination of the
      old-type, independent, peasant by the new rural bourgeoisie, i.e., the
      wealthy peasants, who are unable to run their farms without permanent farm
      labourers and day labourers.

Thestatistics classifying depositors according to occupation provide
      interesting oblique confirmation of what has been said above. These data
      cover nearly three million (2,942,000) accounts, with deposits totalling
      545,000,000 rubles. The average deposit is shown to be 185 rubles—asum, as you see, that clearly points to the predominance, among
      depositors, of “fortunates” who constitute a negligible
      minority of the Russian people and who have inherited or acquired
      property. The biggest depositors are theclergy:46,000,000
      rubles spread over 137,000 accounts, i.e., an average of 333 rubles per
      account. It seems that being responsible for saving the souls of their
      flock is not an unprofitable business.... Next in line are thelandowners:

      9,000,000 rubles on 36,000 accounts, i.e., average of 268 rubles;further—merchants:59,000,000 rubles on 268,000 accounts,
      i.e., an average of 222 rubles; then come officers—with an average
      of 219 rubles per account, civil servants—averaging 202
      rubles. “Agricultural and other rural occupations” hold only
      sixth place: 640,000 accounts totalling 126,000,000 rubles, i.e., the
      average account is 197 rubles; then come “employees in private
      businesses”—with an average of 196 rubles; “miscellaneous
      occupations — 186 rubles; urban trades—159 rubles;
      “domestic servants”— 143 rubles;factory
      workers—136rubles, and last come “private
      soldiers”—86 rubles.

Thus,factory workers practically comelastamong depositors
      (exclusive of private soldiers, who are maintained by the state)! Even
      domestic servants have higher average savings (143 rubles per account, as
      against 136 rubles) and possess a much larger number of accounts. To be
      precise: domestic servants have 333,000 accounts with deposits totalling
      48,000,000 rubles, while factory workers have 157,000 accounts with
      deposits totalling 21,000,000 rubles. The proletariat, which creates all
      the wealth of our aristocracy and our magnates, is in a worse condition
      than servants of the latter! Of the total number of Russian factory
      workers (not less than two million people) only approximatelyone-sixthare able to make even the most modest deposits in the

      savings-banks[5]—and

      this despite the fact that workers’ entire income comes exclusively in
      money, and they often have to support families living in the villages, so
      that for the most part their deposits are not “savings” at all
      in the real sense of the word, but simply sumsput asidefor the
      next remittance to their families, etc. Moreover, we say nothing of the
      fact that the group listed under the heading “factory workers”
      probablyincludes office clerks, foremen, superintendents, in a word, persons who
      are not actually factory workers.

Asto the peasants—if one considers that they are mostly entered
      under the heading of “agricultural and other rural
      occupations,"—well, their average savings account is, as we
      have seen, higher than even that of employees in private businesses, and
      considerably exceeds the average savings of those coming under the heading
      of “urban trades” (i.e., presumably, shopkeepers, artisans,
      janitors, etc.). Obviously, these 640,000 peasants (out of approximately
      10,000,000 households, or families) with 126,000,000 rubles in
      savings-banks belong exclusively to thepeasant bourgeoisie.It
      is only to these peasants, and perhaps to those most closely associated
      with them, that the data on progress in agriculture, the spread of
      machinery, improvements in land cultivation, and higher living standards,
      etc., apply— data brought forward against the socialists by
      Messrs. the Wittes so as to show an “advancement in the people’s
      welfare,” and by Messrs. the Liberals (and the “Critics”) so as to
      refute the “Marxist dogma” about the decline and ruin of
      small-scale farming. These gentlemen do not notice (or pretend not to
      notice) that the decline of small-scale production is expressed precisely
      in the fact that a negligible number of people who grow rich through the
      ruin of the masses come from the ranks of the small producers.

Ofstill greater interest are data classifying the total number of
      depositors according to the size of their deposits. In round figures, this
      classification is as follows: of three million depositors, one million
      possess accountsnot exceeding25rubles.Their deposits
      total 7,000,000 rubles (out of 545,000,000 rubles, i.e., only 12 kopeks of
      every 10 rubles of the aggregate deposits!). The average account is 7rubles.That is to say, the really small depositors, who
      constituteone-thirdof the total number, possess only 1/(?), of
      the aggregate sum. Further, depositors with accounts of between 25 and 100
      rubles constitute one-fifth of the total number (600,000) and own a total
      of 36,000,000 rubles, the average account being55rubles. If we
      combine these two groups, we see thatover50per centof all depositors (1,600,000 out of 3,000,000) own only 42,000,000 rubles,
      or 1/12, of the grand total of 545,000,000 rubles. Of the remainingwell-to-do depositors one million have accounts ranging from 100 to 500
      rubles, with deposits totalling 209,000,000 rubles, the average account
      being 223 rubles. Four hundred thousand depositors have accounts exceeding
      500 rubles each, with deposits totalling 293,000,000 rubles, an average of
      762 rubles. Consequently, these evidently well-to-do people, who formlessthan 1/7 of the total number of depositors, possessmore
      than half(54 per cent) of the total capital.

Hence,theconcentration of capitalin present-day society, the
      dispossession of the masses, makes itself felt with great force even in an
      institution especially intended for the “younger brother,” the
      poorer section of the population, since deposits are limited by law to
      1,000 rubles. And let us note that this concentration of property, which
      is typical of any capitalist society, is still higher in the advanced
      countries, despite the greater “democratisation” of their
      savings-banks. In France, for instance, as of December 31, 1899, there
      were 10,500,000 savings-bank accounts with deposits totalling
      4,337,000,000 francs (a franc is slightly less than 40 kopeks). That makes
      an average of 412 francs per account, or about 160 rubles, i.e.,lessthan the average deposit in Russian savings-banks. The
      number of small depositors in France is also comparatively larger than in
      Russia: approximately one-third of depositors (3 1/3 million) have
      accounts ranging up to 20 francs (8 rubles), the average deposit being 13
      francs (5 rubles). Altogether these depositors possess only 35,000,000
      francs out of a total of 4,337,000,000, i.e., 1/125 Depositors with
      accounts of up to 100 francs constitute a little over 50 per cent of the
      total number (5,300,000), but possess a total of only 143,000,000 francs,
      i.e., 1/33 of the aggregate deposits. On the other hand, depositors with
      accounts of 1,000 francs and over (400 rubles and over), while
      constitutingless than one-fifth(18.5 per cent) of the total
      number of depositors, have concentrated in their handsover
      two-thirds(68.7 per cent) of all deposits, viz., 2,979,000,000
      francs out of a total of 4,337,000,000 francs.

Thus,the reader now has before him a certain amount of information for an
      appraisal of our

      “critics"’arguments. One and the same fact—the enormous increasein savings-bank deposits, and in particular the increase in the number of
      small depositors—is interpreted in different ways. The
      “critics of Marxism” say: the people’s welfare is growing and
      decentralisation of capital is increasing. The socialists say: what is
      taking place is the conversion of savings “in kind” into
      monetary savings, and the number of well-to-do peasants, who are turning
      bourgeois and converting their savings into capital, is increasing. An
      incomparably more rapid growth is to be seen in the number of peasants
      being driven into the ranks of the proletariat, which lives by the sale of
      its labour-power and puts (at least temporarily) part of its meagre income
      into the savings-banks. The large number of small depositors merely goes
      to show how numerous are the poor in capitalist society, since the share
      of these small depositors in the aggregate deposits is negligible.

Thequestion arises: in what way do the “critics” differ from
      the most ordinary bourgeois?

Letus go further, and see how the capital of the savings-banks is used
      and for what purposes. In Russia this capital serves primarily to
      strengthen the might of the militarist and bourgeois-police state. The
      tsarist government (as we have already pointed out in a leading article in
      No. 15 ofIskra[See present edition, Vol. 5,
	“The Budget”.—Ed.])

      disposes of this capital just as arbitrarily as
      it does of all other public property it lays hands on. It quite calmly
      “borrows” hundreds of millions of this capital for financing
      its Chinese expeditions, for hand-outs to capitalists and landowners, for
      re-equipping the army, enlarging the navy, etc. Thus, in 1899, for
      example, 613,000,000 rubles out of aggregate savings-bank deposits of
      679,000,000 rubles were invested in securities, viz., 230,000,000 rubles
      instate loans, 215,000,000 rubles in mortgages held by the Land
      Banks, and 168,000,000 rubles in railway loans.

TheTreasury is doing some very profitable “business”:

      first, it covers all expenses incurred by the savings-banks and gets a net
      profit (hitherto credited to the reserve fund of the savings-banks);
      secondly, itcompelsthe depositors to cover the deficits in our
      state economy (compels them toloan money to the Treasury). From 1894 to 1899, deposits in savings-banks
      totalled an average of 250,000,000 rubles per annum, while withdrawals
      amounted to 200,000,000 rubles. Consequently, that leaves fiftymillionrubles annually that can be used for loans to patch up
      holes in the Treasury’s money-bags, into which thieving fingers are dipped
      by all but the laziest. Why fear deficits due to squandering money on wars
      and on hand-outs to hangers-on at Court, to landlords and manufacturers
      when it is always possible to obtain sizable sums from the “people’s
      savings”!

Weshall add parenthetically that one of the reasons the Treasury is
      conducting such profitable business is because it is steadily lowering the
      rate of interest paid on monetary deposits, which is lower than the
      interest on securities. For example, in 1894 the interest paid on monetary
      deposits was 4.12 per cent, and on securities—4.34 per cent; in 1899
      it was 3.92 per cent and 4.02 per cent, respectively. As is well known,
      reduction of interest is a feature common to all capitalist countries and
      it brings out most clearly and graphically the growth of big capital andlarge-scale production at the expense of small-scale production,
      because in the final analysis the rate of interest is determined by the
      ratio between aggregate prof its and the aggregate capital invested in
      production. Nor can we ignore the fact that the Treasury is constantly
      intensifying its exploitation of postal and telegraph employees:

      at first they had only the mails to look after; then the telegraph was
      added; now they have been burdened also with the job of receiving and
      paying out savings deposits (it should be remembered that 3,718 out of the
      4,781 savings-banks are at post- and telegraph-offices). A terrific
      increase in the intensity of labour and a longer working day—that is
      what this means to the mass of postal and telegraph employees. As to their
      salaries, the Treasury scrimps on them like the most close-fisted kulak:
      the lowest grade of employees, those who have just entered service, are
      paid literallystarvationrates; then comes an endlessly graded
      succession of twenty-five-kopek and fifty-kopek rises, and the prospect of
      a niggardly pension after forty to fifty years of drudgery is intended to
      increase even more the bondage of this varitable “proletariat of
      officialdom.”

Butlet us return to the way savings-bank capital is used. We have seen
      that (by order of the Russian Government) the banks invest 215,000,000
      rubles in mortgages held by the Land Banks and 168,000,000 rubles in
      railway loans. This fact has provided food for still another and of late
      extremely widespread display of bourgeois ...

      I meant to say “critical” wisdom. In essence, the Bernsteins,
      the Hertzes, the Ghernovs, the Bulgakovs, and their like tell us, this
      fact means that the small depositors in the savings-banks are becomingrailway ownersand landmortgage holders.It is a fact,
      they argue, that even such purely capitalist and colossal enterprises as
      the railways and banks are becoming more and more decentralised, are being
      divided up, and are passing into the hands of petty proprietors, who
      acquire them by purchasing shares, bonds, mortgages, etc.; it is a fact
      that the wealthy, the owners of property are growing in number—yet
      those narrow-minded Marxists are fussing about with the antiquated theory
      of concentration and the theory of impoverishment. If, for instance, the
      Russian factory workers have 157,000 accounts at savings-banks with
      aggregate deposits amounting to 21,000,000 rubles, about 5,000,000 rubles
      of this sum is invested in railway loans, and about 8,000,000 rubles in
      Land Bank mortgages. That means that Russian factory workers own 5,000,000
      rubles’ worth of railways and are landowners worth 8,000,000 rubles. Now
      go and talk of a proletariat! Hence, the workers are exploiting the
      landowners, since, in the form of interest on mortgages, they receive a
      modicum of rent, i.e., a small portion of the surplus-value.

Yes,this precisely is the line of reasoning adopted by the latest critics
      of Marxism.... And—here is something that will surprise you—I
      am prepared to agree with the widespread opinion that we should welcome
      this “criticism,” since it has brought a stir into a theory which
      was alleged to be stagnant; I am prepared to agree to that on the
      following condition. There was a time when the French socialists whetted
      their skill as propagandists and agitators by analysing the sophisms of
      Bastiat, while the German socialists followed suit by unravelling the
      sophisms of

      Schulze-Delitzsch[6];

      as for us, Russians, it hasthus farfallen toour lot to deal only with the company of “critics.” And so, I am
      prepared to shout, “Long live criticism!”—onconditionthat, in our propaganda andagitation among the
      masses, we, socialists, engageas widely as possiblein an
      analysis of all the bourgeois sophisms of fashionable “criticism.”
      If you agree to this condition we can call it a bargain! Incidentally, our
      bourgeoisie are more and more maintaining a discreet silence; for they
      prefer the protection of the tsarist

      archangels [An appellation given in tsarist Russia
	to members of the secret police.—Ed.]

      to that of the bourgeois theoreticians, and it will be very convenient for
      us to accept the “critics” as the “devil’s advocates.”

Throughthe savings-banks eyer larger numbers of workers and small
      producers are taking a share in big enterprises. This is undoubtedly a
      fact. What this fact shows, how ever, is not an increase in the number of
      property-owners, but 1) the growing socialisation of labour in capitalist
      society, and 2) the growing subordination of small-scale production to
      large-scale production. Take the small Russian depositor. Over 50 per cent
      of such depositors, as we have seen, have accounts of up to 100 rubles, to
      wit 1,618,000 depositors with savings totalling 42,000,000 rubles, i.e.,
      an average of 26 rubles per depositor. Thus, this depositor “owns”
      about 6 rubles’ worth of railways and about 9 rubles’ worth of
      “landed property.” Does this make him wealthy or a
      “proprietor”?  No, he remains a proletarian, who is forced to sell
      his labour-power, i.e., to become a slave of those who own the means of
      production. As for his “share” in “railway and
      banking” business, it merely shows that capitalism is increasingly
      linking together individual members of society and individual classes. The
      interdependence of individual producers was infinitesimal in patriarchal
      economy; it is now constantly increasing. Labour is becoming more and more
      social, and enterprises less and less “private,” although they still
      remainalmost entirelyin private hands.

Hisparticipation in a big enterprise undoubtedlyweavesthe
      small depositorinto the patternof that enterprise. Who benefits
      from this link? Big capital does, which extends its transactions by paying
      the small depositor nomore (and often less) than it pays any other lender, and by beingthe
      more independentof the small depositors, thesmallerand
      the more scattered the latter are. We have seen that the share of the
      small depositors is extremely small even in the savings-bank capital. How
      insignificant, then, must it be in the capital of the railway and banking
      magnates? By giving his mite to these magnates, the small depositor enters
      into anew dependenceon big capital. He cannot even think of
      having any say in the use of this big capital; his “profit” is
      ridiculously small (26 rubles at 4 percent=1 ruble a year!). Yet in the
      event of a failure he loses even his miserable mite. What the abundance of
      these small depositors signifies is not the decentralisation of big
      capital but thestrengthening of the powerof big capital, which
      is able to dispose of even the smallest mites in the
      “people’s” savings. His share in big enterprises does not make
      the small depositor more independent; on the contrary, he becomesmore
	dependenton the big proprietor.

Whatfollows from the increase in the number of small depositors is not
      the reassuring philistine deduction about an increase in the number of
      wealthy people, but the revolutionary conclusion of the growing dependence
      of the small depositors on the big, of the mounting contradiction between
      the increasingly socialised nature of the enterprises and the preservation
      of private ownership of the means of production. The more the
      savings-banks develop, the more interested do the small depositors become
      in the socialist victory of the proletariat, which alone will make them
      real, and not fictitious, “sharers” in and administrators of
      social wealth.

[1]Iskra (The Spark)—thefirst all-Russian illegal Marxist
      news paper, which Lenin founded in 1900 and which played a decisive part
      in creating the revolutionary Marxist party of the working class.

Sincepolice persecution made publication of a revolutionary newspaper
      impossible in Russia, Lenin, while in exile in Siberia, worked out all
      details of a plan for publishing one abroad. When his exile ended (January
      1900), he immediately set about giving effect to this plan. In February
      1900 Lenin conducted negotiations in St. Petersburg with V. I. Zasulich,
      who had illegally come there from abroad, on participation of the
      Emancipation of Labour group in publishing an all-Russian Marxist
      newspaper. In late March and early April 1900, the so-called “Pskov
      Conference” took place, at which V. I. Lenin, Y. 0. Martov,
      A. N. Potresov and S. I. Radchenko, together with the “legal
      Marxists” P. B. Struve and M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, discussed Lenin’s
      draft editorial declaration on the programme and tasks of an all-Russian
      newspaper (Iskra) and a scientific-political magazine
      (Zarya).Lenin visited a number of Russian cities (Moscow,
      St. Petersburg, Riga, Smolensk, Nizhni-Novgorod, Ufa, Samara, Syzran),
      established connections with Social-Democratic groups and individual
      Social-Democrats and came to an agreement with them concerning support for
      the futureIskra.When Lenin arrived in Switzer land in August
      1900, he and A. N. Potresov had a conference with members of the
      Emancipation of Labour group concerning the programme and tasks of the
      newspaper and the magazine, possible contributors, and the composition and
      location of the editorial board. These negotiations almost ended in a
      rupture (see present edition, Vol. 4,“How the ‘Spark’ Was Nearly
      Extinguished,” pp. 333-49), but finally agreement on all the questions at
      issue was reached with the Emancipation of Labour group.

Thefirst number of Lenin’sIskrawas published in Leipzig in
      December 1900, while the following numbers came out in Munich, in London
      from July 1902 and in Geneva from the spring of 1903. Great assistance in
      organising the publication ofIskrawas given by the German
      Social-Democrats Clara Zetkin, Adolf Braun and others, by the Polish
      revolutionary Julian Marchlewski who was living in Munich at the time, and
      by Harry Quelch, one of the leaders of the British Social-Democratic
      Federation. The Editorial Board ofIskraconsisted of
      V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekhanov,Y.0. Martov, P. B. Axelrod,
      A. N. Potresov, and V. I. Zasulich.  I. G. Smidovich-Leman was the first
      secretary of the Editorial Board, to be later followed, from the spring of
      1901, by N. K. Krupskaya,who also dealt with allIskra’scorrespondence with Russian
      Democratic organisations.

Iskracentred its attention on problems of the revolutionary
      struggle of the proletariat and all the working people of Russia against
      the tsarist autocracy, but it also p aid great attention to leading
      international events, and chiefly to the international working-class
      movement. In actual fact Lenin was the editor-in-chief and leader ofIskra;he wrote articles on all the main questions of Party
      construction and the Russian proletariat’s class struggle.

Iskrabecame the centre for the unification of the Party’s
      forces, mobilising and training the Party’s cadres. In a number of Russian
      cities (St. Petersburg, Moscow, Samara, etc.) R.S.D.L.P. groups and
      committees of Lenin’sIskratrend were established, and in
      January 1902 a RussianIskraorganisation was set up at a
      conference ofIskrasupporters held in Samara. TheIskraorganisations were created and carried out their work under the direct
      guidance of Lenin’s pupils and comrades-in-arms: N. E. Bauman,
      I. V. Babushkin, S. I. Gusev, M. I. Kalinin, P. A. Krasikov,
      G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, F. V. Leugnik, P. N. Lepeshtnsky, I. I. Radchenko,
      and others.

OnLenin’s initiative and with his direct participation, theIskraEditorial Board drew up the draft Party programme
      (published in No. 21 ofIskra) and prepared the Second Congress
      of the R.S.D.L.P., which took place in July-August 1903. When the Congress
      met, most local Social-Democratic organisations In Russia had adhered toIskra, approved its tactics, programme, and organisational plan,
      and recognised it as their leading organ. A special decision of the
      Congress noted the unique role ofIskrain the struggle for the
      Party, and appointed it the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P. The Second
      Congress ratified an editorial board consisting of Lenin, Plekhanov, and
      Martov. Martov, who insisted on retention of all six former editors,
      refused to go on the board, despite the Party Congress decision, and
      Nos. 46-51 of the paper appeared under the editorship of Lenin and
      Plekhanov. Later Plekhanov went over to the Menshevik position, and
      demanded that theIskraEditorial Board should include all the
      old Menshevik editors rejected by the Congress. Lenin could not agree to
      this, and on October 19 (November 1), 1903, he left theIskraEditorial Board. He was co-opted into the Central Committee and from there
      conducted a struggle against the Menshevik opportunists. No. 52 ofIskraappeared under the editorship of Plekhanov alone. On
      November 13 (26), 1903, Plekhanov, acting alone and in defiance of the
      Congress, co-opted the former Menshevik editors into theIskraEditorial Board. Beginning with No. 52, the Mensheviks transformedIskrainto their own organ. p. 86

[2]Zemstvo—thename given to the local
      government bodies introduced in the central gubernias of tsarist Russia in
      1864.

Thepowers of the Zemstvos were limited to purely local economic problems
      (hospital and road building, statistics, insurance, etc.). Their
      activities were controlled by the provincial governorsand by the Ministry of the Interior, which could overrule any decisions
      disapproved by the government. p. 86

[3]In speaking of the“Novoye Vremyapanegyrics”
      V. I. Lenin has in mind the reactionary trend of the tsarist Russian press
      as typified by the newspaperNovoye Vremya (New Times) which was
      published in St. Petersburg from 1868 to October 1917.

NovoyeVremya-ism was an expression used to denote reactionism,
      venality, and toadyism. p. 87

[4]V. I. Lenin has in view the “Report of the State Savings-Banks for
      1899,” published by the Board of the State Savings-Banks (year of
      publication not indicated). p. 87

[5]The calculation is inaccurate: 157,000 is not one-sixth, but approximately
      one-twelfth of the two million factory workers. p. 89

[6]Bastiat—French bourgeois economist of the first half of the
      nineteenth century. Bastiat preached civil peace, the “harmony of
      interests” of the various classes of bourgeois society. Karl Marx in
      his work, “Carey and Bastiat,” written in July-December 1857,
      sharply criticised and ridiculed Bastiat’s doctrine.

Schulze-Delitzsch—Germaneconomist and supporter of
      Bastiat. In an effort to divert workers and artisans, who were becoming
      proletarianised, from the revolutionary struggle, he advocated the
      establishment of co-operative societies and loan and savings-banks, which,
      he claimed, could improve the proletariat’s condition within the framework
      of capitalism and save the artisan small producers from ruin. p. 94